Pastor John Wright

« Acts 3:11-26: Peter's Second Sermon | Main | Tasha's Concern »

June 30, 2005

General Assembly and General Superintendents -- After the Trip

We arrived home yesterday about 12:00 pm after 29 straight hours in the van (with small breaks). It was a wonderful trip. I lost track of the goings-on in Indianapolis while on the road. When I came back, Kevin Modesto, elder,church-member, friend, met me as I ran to campus to get some Inter-Library Loan books with news of the General Superintendency news. I've been chewing this over since then. Here's my nickel analysis, for what it's worth.

First, there is a trend to see the primary action of the Church of the Nazarene as local. Two persons rejected the General Superintendency -- one after election; one right before election. These two rejections of general church leadership came out of deeper commitments to local missions of each person for the church. The General Superintendency is seen as an administrative position "out of touch" of where the real work is going on, rather than a means of guarding the church's catholicity in mission. The travel, stress, and strain of the job, and its minimal actual authority make the General Superintendency an unattractive position. Additionally, any work done must be done as a council, not as an individual. Thus the ability to conduct any particular action is only moral and the power of appointment. Because various congregations and departments have come to be seens as "franchises" to be motivated by the corporate board, one can live with less hassles and pursue one's own mission as members of the franchises. In other words, the "growth" ideology put forth by the past Board of General Superintendents has undercut the importance of the office itself.

Second, the Church of the Nazarene has become sufficiently large that such elections are very difficult to implement. No one knows who really would be a good General Superintendent -- though pretty good ideas exist concerning who wouldn't serve well in the office. Although non-American members outnumber American members, the leaders in these areas are not networked geographically, linguistically, and culturally as are the United States members, particularly the members in the "red states". Thus, I believe that the assembly wanted to elect a non-American to the office, but were unable once the Brazilian pastor withdrew his name. No one knew anyone else. The numbers of ballots became very large and the deadline of the Assembly, flights home, etc, became very near. The Assembly's largest voting block returned to what they knew and whom they knew and were most like themselves -- white, middlewestern, heavy American religious-right leanings seeking to establish a white, Protestant Christendom model in the United States based upon "personal conversions" and "powerful experiences of the Spirit". By electing a woman they could believe that they had widened the church's diversity (and in a very limited sense, they are right), but not really face the problem of the limited perspective of the general leadership. By electing J. K. Warrick, they elected the second pastor from the same church -- Olathe College Church of the Nazarene -- that has been at the center of Nazarene identification with the religious right in the past 40 years. Warrick himself actively worked for an amendment to the Kansas Constitution about same-sex marriages, often quoted in papers with inflammatory speech about homosexuality that do not represent the more nuanced position of the church.

It is my impression, then, that the General Assembly elected two of the most revivalistic, non-catholic, religious right members of the church, deeply embedded in the American evangelical political project of an autonomous, privately moral Christian individual who makes "Christian choices" and a more generic public morality to be implemented by the nation-state in return for support of the agenda of that nation-state. What this means for the internationalization of the Church of the Nazarene is not promising. Most likely it means that we will continue to export "personal conversion experiences" via the Jesus film, no catechesis, and control of funding, decisions, and economics by an American-based business pragmaticism.

One final comment. It is interesting to compare the recent papal elections with these elections. Neither Warrick nor Gunter has a Masters degree from a Nazarene institution. Gunter's masters is in education, not theology. Neither one has any deep engagement with the Christian tradition, except in the very limited, culturally accomodated form that they have experienced within their evangelical subculture. Obviously, wisdom is not sought from the life of the church through the ages in the Church of the Nazarene, but in power of personality and ability to advocate an agenda from the position of power. One the other hand, Benedict XVI is a very learned man, and while conservative, conservative from within the Christian tradition, not conservative from within the American tradition. Thus, when Benedict speaks, he speaks from within a tradition that he can acknowledge, own, and re-iterate; the tradition that forms the leadership in the Church of the Nazarene is unacknowledged, supposedly subjective and "biblical", but in actuality, confined to a very tenuous locality of time and culture. In other words, the leadership reflects the same lack of catholicity that made the other two persons turn down the position, not accept it.

Unless a wider Christian perspective is soon formed in the leadership of the Church of the Nazarene, both geographically and throughout time, past and future, this ruled order will fragment into national bodies with basic congregational decisions.

Tomorrow I'll try and add some comments on the legislative decisions made by the assembly.

Posted by johnwright at June 30, 2005 8:31 PM

Comments

Thanks for somw feedback, John. I was disappointed at how much Valvasourra lost ground after coming within about 20 votes of being eleced by Ballot 17. It seems like him withdrawing his name was for the "greater good"- in his mind- so that the process would go faster. Now that I"m an East Coast liberal (he he) I am still excited about Gunter, though I agree that she seems to be cut from the sam clothe as all the other men. Thank you for your reflections; I have had a difficult time processing what happened and the reasons for it. What is it with the Nazarene church and the Midwest? I love it that the new Vision Headquarters is moving....further into Kansas! Having not officially taken History and Polity, I am stumped. But I can only start praying for the next elections, much as I did 4 years ago, and that we will truly become the International church we say we are.

Posted by: Erin McCoy at July 1, 2005 6:32 AM

John,
Would it be so bad to let some of the "grandness" of the General Assembly slip away and focus a little more regionally? Isn't it getting too difficult to try and implement policy in places so different as Africa is from America? Could it be better to opperate regionally with a small General gathering of regional leaders every four years that would keep the denomination on the same page as far a core values and the unity of the denomination is concerned? My biggest concern is that we are wasting peoples money and time.

Hi Erin!!

Scott

Posted by: Scott Savage at July 1, 2005 7:44 AM

Your comments about catholicity and the various forms of conservatism reminds me of a wonderful paper Eleonore Stump's written, entitled "Orthodoxy and Heresy" (Faith and Philosophy, 1999). In it, Stump argues that Christian philosophers need to be more rooted in not just the geographic diversity of contemporary Christian thought, but also (and more importantly for issues of orthodoxy/catholicity) in the Church's history and the lives of the saints who have gone before. Her advice is sage not only for Christian philosophers, but for all Christians. Stump's advice should be contrasted with what you described as happening in the GS elections: "Neither one has any deep engagement with the Christian tradition, except in the very limited, culturally accomodated form that they have experienced within their evangelical subculture. Obviously, wisdom is not sought from the life of the church through the ages in the Church of the Nazarene, but in power of personality and ability to advocate an agenda from the position of power."

We have so much to learn from our Catholic (and catholic!) brothers and sisters.

Posted by: Kevin Timpe at July 1, 2005 8:40 AM

Hi John,

I am thankful for your analysis. I agree that there are major problems with the voting method for the general superintendency in that it operates on name recognition and as I could sense the assmebly wanting to elect someone from outside the US, the one name that rose in the balloting (pastor of a big church, large delegation from Brazil) was someone who didn't even want the position. Rather than looking for another relatively unknown person, for lack of time two middle-Americans are quickly elected. The system, in its effort to be entirely guided by the Holy Spirit, in effect becomes a cult of personality. I've been blessed to go to Africa three short times in two years and I know some fantastic Nazarene leaders who will likely never have the social mobility to move all over the world and become known in the church. GS elections are a self-promoting system. For so many of us longing for a vibrant, dynamic global church, we're stymied by monolithic leadership.

I'm coming home from assembly encouraged. My encouragement that most of the ideas and theologies keeping the American Nazarene Church from truly realizing its global identity do not run deep. We are a church of well-intentioned and wonderfully good people who yet appear largely ignorant to true global Nazarene polity and the church's place in the larger Christian tradition.

The Nazarene global mission effort has resulted in a beautiful international church. As ethnocentric as the leadership remains today, someday that leadership will be replaced by new generations who hold fast to holiness doctrine, connect more profoundly with all of Christianity. This hope is not arrogant or elitist in the least, as much as we need the elderly leaders to hand over leadership to younger generations, we need to talk and walk together. (I learned that from Dr. Porter a few years back.) We are made one in the Spirit of the Lord.

Peace,

Brian

Posted by: Brian Becker at July 1, 2005 2:13 PM

Thanks for the good response so far. I think that they make good points to enrich our understanding of the situation.

Brian, you are right that such things are in place -- the toothpaste is out of the bottle, so to speak. But ... the Americanism in the holiness movement is very, very deep. I think that, if the church can sustain its witness, there will be new leadership emerge. The problem is that this assembly was a regress as far as witnessing to its geographic catholicity, and no real awareness was even expressed about its historical catholicity -- more on that tonight.

Erin, we will have to wait and see what the office does to Nina Gunter, and how even her presence as an equal amidst the Board of General Superintendents changes the dynamics. I reject "identity politics", while at the same time understanding the point. But I wouldn't exactly say that Clarence Thomas represents African American's on the Supreme Court just because he is black; post-colonial thought here is helpful to understand these complex dynamics.

Scott:
I heard the wedding went well! Thank you for your witness! You mention the point of expenses. Obvious, goods need ordered. It is interesting that I heard at the convention a discussion about moving to four to five regional places, and then video-conferencing the assembly. This obviously has some merits. But catholicity is not just jurisdictional -- it also has to be bodily. How to do this with the Church of the Nazarene is an interesting question. I still think that looking at an international monastic order might be an interesting way to get at it. Yet when I think about how American the American Council of Bishops become, even though they are subordinated to Rome, I'm not sure of the wisdom of this. I just don't know.

And yes, Kevin, have I ever had a thought that Elenore Stump hasn't beaten me to? I hope to find time to read some of her works. Maybe I can get her on our list for the Wiley lectures at PLNU.

In sum, yes, I believe that the Church of the Nazarene is engaged in a grand experiment in internationalization, which brings great hope to its witness. But unless that "global commitment" has an anchorage in a genuine catholicity rather than in a business strategy for expansion, I'm afraid that we will continue to operate much like we have. I don't mean to be pessimistic, or limit the work of the Spirit. I remain hopeful. I want to participate in the good of its witness, and even own the church's failings as my own. I just keep praying that we can be "a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, washed in the blood of the Lamb."
John

Posted by: John Wright at July 1, 2005 2:56 PM

John,

As funny as your question is, I think the real question is this: Have you or Eleonore even had a thought that St. Thomas hadn't beaten both of you too?

Posted by: Kevin Timpe at July 5, 2005 8:43 AM